Tickerguy: 1, ObaBots: 0 (proof of LFBC fraud)

Market-Ticker ^ | 4/29/2011 | Karl Denninger

[Triple]

(Note:the HTML on the images was tricky for me - if they don't show up it is my fault)

Oh do come on folks. 

There's an old saying: When the facts support your position, use them.  When they don't, or when you get caught lying, throw crap at the wall and hope something sticks!

The latest is the National Review which had this to say about my analysis on the birth certificate:

The PDF is composed of multiple images. That’s correct. Using a photo editor or PDF viewer of your choice, you can extract this image data, view it, hide it, etc. But these layers, as they’re being called, aren’t layers in the traditional photo-editing sense of the word. They are, quite literally, pieces of image data that have been positioned in a PDF container. They appear as text but also contain glyphs, dots, lines, boxes, squiggles, and random garbage. They’re not combined or merged in any way. Quite simply, they look like they were created programmatically, not by a human.

This is what happens when you don't bother actually watching the video I posted, or looking into the provenance of what you're arguing over - you just throw crap at the wall.  Nathan goes on to post a PDF that he scanned which shows his "layers."

Unfortunately, in doing so, he proved that I'm correct.

See, the issue isn't layers.  Yes, the layers are suspicious, but they're not the smoking gun.  The smoking gun is that there are no chromatic artifacts in the Obama document, but the document is allegedly a color scan of an actual piece of paper, and we know it had to be a color scan because the background is allegedly color safety paper.

National Review's document, unsurprisingly, is a scan of a color document.  How do we know?  Because if you simply pull it up in your web browser (which will open the embedded Acrobat Reader) and zoom it up, you will see this:

Note the chromatic aberration.  This document is in fact a color scan.

And here is a blown-up piece of the so-called "scan" of Obama's document:

Note the absence of chromatic aberration.  The Obama White House document is not an unaltered color scan.

Folks, this is physics.  It is "how things work."  It is why you see rainbows.  Light always is refracted slightly differently depending on wavelength when it goes through a lens - as is necessary to focus it so as to make an image. 

Could I scan an image in color and then make this "go away" in an image program?  Probably.  Why would you?  The intent of the release, remember, is to produce an actual image of a physical document and the claim made was that this was a copy of a physical piece of paper.

The Obots were all over me yesterday with the claim that "well, it could have been an electronic copy."  No, it wasn't.  Beyond the fact that certified copies are always printed to paper and then authenticated (e.g. with a raised seal) there is documentary evidence that Hawaii did exactly that.  Look here.  Hawaii produced photocopies - not electronic copies, photostatic copies of the original.

Well, that's even more troublesome, because if they were photocopies how is it that the Associated Press and the White House wound up with two very different-looking documents?  How do you take a photocopy and have two different "versions" of that same piece of paper magically appear - one with a green safety paper background and the other not?  Incidentally, we know factually that the green "safety paper" in question did not exist and was not used in 1961 as there are dozens of close-in-time actual birth certificates from Hawaii that have been floating around the Internet and have been posted.  Therefore, given that Hawaii has stated in a public, signed letter that it issued photostatic copies of the original in the bound book the copy on the White House site has to have been - at minimum - "enhanced."

My next question (which I've tried to get answered without success) is where did the AP get the piece of paper that they put into a scanner?  And note carefully: AP did, in fact, place a piece of paper into a scanner and published what came out.  There is no evidence that AP tampered with the digital representation of what they scanned, while there's plenty of evidence that the White House did, and in fact what the White House produced does not appear to be an actual scan at all but is a created digital document.

The question, therefore, is what was the source and provenance of the document AP scanned?  We know the apparent answer: It came from the White House, and had to, since the correspondence says that there were only two copies produced and both went directly to White House counsel.  What AP presented is only as good as the source of the paper they were handed.

There are others who have noted a number of other problems with the document presented.  Among them are that there are no apparent tab stops used on the Obama "birth certificate."  1961 was the day of the typewriter, and nobody hand-centered things like that.  Production typists used tab stops and if you look at other, known-authentic birth certificates from the time, you'll note that they're tab-aligned.  Obama's is not.  Remember Dan Rather and his little forgery?  20-something idiots in the White House IT department have never used an actual typewriter in their life.  40-something bloggers and their girlfriends (and "Batgirl" deserves recognition for the catch on this one) most certainly did during our school and college years, and we remember how they worked too.  Nobody ever manually centered or manually-aligned production documents in a typewriter.  Can that be explained?  Maybe the janitor typed Obama's birth certificate.  Or maybe he was "really special" compared to the thousands of other births in Hawaii, and a lowly typist in 1961 "knew" he should have a "really pretty" typed certificate because he'd be President 40 years later.  It's also entirely plausible that aliens really did land in Roswell, you know.

Other curiosities include the fact that the time of birth is exactly the same on the (now-discredited - or is it?) Kenyan birth certificate that has been floating around the Internet, and that registration dates on the long-form match the Kenyan "forgery" as well.  How did a purely fraudulent document in a foreign nation happen to wind up with the exact same time of birth and certification dates as the alleged "real" certificate - if Hawaii never released the latter information until now?  That's a hell of a coincidence.  Yes, I know the time of birth was "out there."  The certification dates were not, to the best of my ability to determine, public knowledge.

This debate is not, at this point, about whether Obama was born in the United States.  There are plenty of people who question that, but this case simply isn't about that any more.

This case is about whether a sitting President presented an altered - that is, forged - document to the American public and claimed it was authentic.  You cannot at the same time have Hawaii state that they made two PHOTOCOPIES of an original in a book and then have the White House and AP release "scanned" copies of that document which appear to have been printed on entirely-different paper, never mind that one of them is clearly not a simple scan.

The evidence strongly supports this allegation.  The obvious next question is this: What, Mr. President, are you trying to hide, and we then must turn to whether a sitting President should be permitted to erase the tapes that document his knowledge of a break-in to a hotel....

[faucetman]

How much debate has there been over commas in the 2nd amendment?

ParentS, PLURAL, is no accident.

[Kansas58]

Learn to read.
I never said what you claim that I have said.

I said, clearly, upthread, that I think that “Birthright Citizenship” as in the “anchor baby” problem can be resolved.

In that case, NEITHER PARENT is a citizen, right?

[Kansas58]

Congress has the power to interpret the Constitution.

So does the President

Not just the Courts.

And Congress can enact legislation to implement the Constitution.

None of these actions requires another Amendment.

[faucetman]

“However, I do not think the issue of his Father’s Kenyan or British citizenship amounts to a hill of beans.”

You have the right to your OPINION

You also have the right to be DEAD WRONG

[faucetman]

So what? Who died and left them boss?

[Kansas58]

Take a course in logic.

To say that a person born on US Soil of two US Citizens IS a Natural Born Citizen is NOT the same as saying:

“If one Parent is not a citizen, no dice”

Inclusive vs exclusive language, basic legal stuff here. Basic English language stuff, as well as basic logic.

[kabar]

And Lawrence Tribe and Ted Olson are just WRONG.

That is YOUR OPINION. It is not settled law. Read the entire joint opinion, which was used as the basis for the Seante Resolution on McCain.

Whether you think that these two reputable, famous Constitutional scholars and lawyers are wrong is really irrelevant. And their opinion does not represent the final word. However, their opinions do have considerable weight. To summarily dismiss them is nonsense.

[Hypo2]

“of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty”

or

“of a parent owing allegiance to no other sovereignty”

singular or plural, it’s about the same.

[Kansas58]

The declaration was made in the book that William Ayers wrote, for Obama.

NOTHING NEW in his daddy at all, as a matter of law.

In fact, I was in the crowd, and still might be, that thought that Frank M. Davis IS the real Daddy.

[Waryone]

Thank you for stating the obvious, and it is quite obvious that you don’t think the Constitution amounts to a hill of beans.

After all, the rest of the world believes in Gorebull warming anyway. Why fight it. We’ve already lost that battle and gay marriage is inevitable. We’ve already lost that battle. Just because the Constitution means something if the dems don’t agree with us, we’ve already lost that battle.

Funny, but I’ve found that the conservatives who refuse to believe in the natural born citizen clause are the ones who would not be able to qualify. They seem to take it personally and refuse to believe that though they are citizens born in this country, they could never qualify to become president. Well, tough, that’s life and those are the breaks. Just because people wish things and even lie enough to get others to believe them, doesn’t make what they wish, and hope, and believe, and can pull off, true.

[Kansas58]

You are very cocky for someone who holds a minority view, even among “birthers” -—
VERY FEW people hold the same view as you hold.

And, the fact that you ignore every single argument anyone makes, against you, shows that you don't really want to win where it counts, at the ballot box or in Court.

You are so perfect that nobody needs to agree with you? Outside of FR, you have few followers. You aren't going to win many with the attitude you show here, either.

[kabar]

Birth Abroad to Two U.S. Citizen Parents in Wedlock

A child born abroad to two U.S. citizen parents acquires U.S. citizenship at birth under section 301(c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) provided that one of the parents had a residence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions prior to the child’s birth. The child is considered to be born in wedlock if the child is the genetic issue of the married couple.

Birth Abroad to One Citizen and One Alien Parent in Wedlock

A child born abroad to one U.S. citizen parent and one alien parent acquires U.S. citizenship at birth under Section 301(g) of the INA provided the U.S. citizen parent was physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for the time period required by the law applicable at the time of the child’s birth. (For birth on or after November 14, 1986, a period of five years physical presence, two after the age of fourteen, is required. For birth between December 24, 1952 and November 13, 1986, a period of ten years, five after the age of fourteen, is required for physical presence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions to transmit U.S. citizenship to the child.) The U.S. citizen parent must be genetically related to the child to transmit U.S. citizenship.

Birth Abroad Out-of-Wedlock to a U.S. Citizen Father – “New” Section 309(a)

A person born abroad out-of-wedlock to a U.S. citizen father may acquire U.S. citizenship under Section 301(g) of the INA, as made applicable by the “new” Section 309(a) of the INA provided:

A blood relationship between the person and the father is established by clear and convincing evidence;
The father had the nationality of the United States at the time of the person’s birth;
The father was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions prior to the child’s birth for five years, at least two of which were after reaching the age of 14.

The father (unless deceased) has agreed in writing to provide financial support for the person until the person reaches the age of 18 years, and
While the person is under the age of 18 years —
the person is legitimated under the law of his/her residence or domicile,
the father acknowledges paternity of the person in writing under oath, or
the paternity of the person is established by adjudication of a competent court.

Birth Abroad Out-of-Wedlock to a U.S. Citizen Father –

“Old” Section 309(a) of the INA- A child born out-of-wedlock to a U.S. citizen father may acquire U.S. citizenship under the former Section 301(a)(7) of the INA as made applicable by the “old” Section 309(a) of the INA if the U.S. citizen father, prior to the child’s birth, had been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for ten years, five of which were after the age of 14, and if the paternity of the child had been established by legitimation prior to the child reaching the age of 21. The “old” Section 309(a) of the INA is applicable to individuals who were 18 on November 14, 1986 and to individuals whose paternity had been established by legitimation prior to that date. Individuals who were at least 15 on November 14, 1986, but under the age of 18, could opt to have their claim determined in accordance with the provisions of either the “old” or the “new” Section 309(a).

Birth Abroad Out-of-Wedlock to a U.S. Citizen Mother:

A person born abroad out-of-wedlock to a U.S. citizen mother may acquire U.S. citizenship under Section 309(c) of the INA if the mother was a U.S. citizen at the time of the person’s birth and if the mother was physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year prior to the person’s birth. The mother must be genetically related to the person in order to transmit U.S. citizenship.

Questions: Contact the U.S. Department of State, Bureau of Consular Affairs, Directorate of Overseas Citizens Services, Office of Policy Review and Inter-Agency Liaison at ASKPRI@state.gov.

[Steel Wolf]

///The country was and is IGNORANT. We are trying to change that. Not a dead horse.///

The country isn’t ignorant. They get it. They just don’t care. It’s high time the birthers come to grips with that reality and devote this level of time, intensity and passion to a tactic that will defeat Obama in 2012. The BC is a dead horse.

[BladeBryan]

That is what it says. They are wrong. He wasn't born on a military base, he was born in a part of the canal zone that the U.S. had no jurisdiction. And being born in a FOREIGN COUNTRY, he can not be NBC.

The, parents in service to their country, idea gives you citizenship by birth, not Natural Born Citizenship.

I know of just one court that examined that issue. Markham Robinson petitioned the the United States District Court for the Northern District of California for a preliminary injunction to remove John McCain from the ballot [Robinson v. Bowen]. To rule on the motion, the Court assessed the likelihood of Robinson winning on the merits:

At the time of Senator McCain’s birth, the pertinent citizenship provision prescribed that “[a]ny child hereafter born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, whose father or mother or both at the time of the birth of such child is a citizen of the United States, is declared to be a citizen of the United States.” Act of May 24, 1934, Pub. L. No. 73-250, 48 Stat. 797. The Supreme Court has interpreted the phrase “out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States” in this statute to be the converse of the phrase “in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” in the Fourteenth Amendment, and therefore to encompass all those not granted citizenship directly by the Fourteenth Amendment. Under this view, Senator McCain was a citizen at birth. In 1937, to remove any doubt as to persons in Senator McCain’s circumstances in the Canal Zone, Congress enacted 8 U.S.C. 1403(a), which declared that persons in Senator McCain’s circumstances are citizens by virtue of their birth, thereby retroactively rendering Senator McCain a natural born citizen, if he was not one already. This order finds it highly probable, for the purposes of this motion for provisional relief, that Senator McCain is a natural born citizen. Plaintiff has not demonstrated the likelihood of success on the merits necessary to warrant the drastic remedy he seeks.

Note that the Court equated citizenship from birth with natural-born citizenship.

[Kansas58]

Yep, read all of that on an old Passport application.

not hard to find, online, either, but I do notice that the Passport Application is not the same as it used to be, online. They have taken out some of the citizenship stuff and refer you, now, to US Code Sections.

[Kansas58]

Thanks.
We do not always agree but -— nice work!

[faucetman]

“McCain was a citizen at birth and therefor a Natural Born Citizen.”

You are just plain WRONG on this matter of “citizen at birth”. It means just what it says. You are a “citizen” (not a natural born citizen, or it would say that) because of the circumstances of your birth as opposed to being a citizen because of some law or court. This is what that means. It has NOTHING to do with “natural born citizen”.

I understand that many people THINK that citizen at or by birth could mean “natural born citizen”. That is only because they know nothing about the history of citizenship and the concerns of John Jay and George Washington at the time of the founding. Also because of Vattel Law of Nations, that everyone understood what “natural born citizen” meant. No need to define it they thought, since everyone knows what it is.

It stands out. It stands alone. It is a specific phrase for a specific purpose that citizen at birth may not, by itself, guarantee. You can't see it's unique importance? It is only used once. It is NOT used in the 14th amendment where citizenship issues are determined for everyone else.
“Natural Born Citizen” SCREAMS from that page by it's absence. While there are a few that disagree and ultimately it will be decided by SCOTUS, but to anyone seriously studying this, there is no question of the founders intent in this matter.
We will have to agree to disagree, but I will continue to refute your posts as I can't have you misinforming with impunity, others on this forum.

[Kansas58]

A court has ruled against you.

See 214 above, by “Blade”

[Khepri]

If Obama was born on US soil, or on a US ship or US plane or US territory, for that matter, Obama would be a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN!

This is incorrect IMHO.

Firstly we have Senate Resolution 511, sponsored by Obama and voted for by Obama of all people (LMAO)...

We also have a SCOTUS decision;

Minor v. Happersett (1874)

The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.

I'm sure you recognize citizens as being in the plural.

OBAMA IS NOT NATURAL BORN ACCORDING TO ALL EVIDENCE PRESENTED THUS FAR.

I'd refer everyone to read this thread for your edification;

CNN via BREAKING on Drudge: White House releases Obama birth certificate

[Steel Wolf]

/// The country knew this, and the country disagreed with you. Sadly, that battle is lost. Lets fight on a hill we might be able to win? ///

Depends on the definition of “win”. There’s a lot of folks who care a lot less about defeating Obama than they care about defending their pet delusion. It’s as if they think that somehow, if they could just explain it a little clearer to the assorted morons of the world, everyone would bolt upright in their seats and declare, “By God, you’re right! Obama must be frog marched out of the White House at once! We call a do-over of all laws passed since 2008!”.

Truth is, we defeat Obama at the ballot box in 2012, or not at all.